use that's kind of changed in meaning since the 18th century is disinterested disinterested ness this is in his writings all the and today when we use that word it kind of sounds like someone who's not interested but for him it was the opposite of self-interest and it was the most important principle and the new republic, the people would be dissenters. and his problem with political parties was that they were self-interested. they are self-interested. and of course, we need political parties today. but i think just a little bit of that spirit, you know, whatever washington or a lot of washington in this respect and of that of founding spirit of the country. i think i think can help us today and it's a great way to end thank you. as yourick atkinson i consider e

of the greatest living writers on war in history. why do you why do you write stories about war. well, thank you for that, doug? i about war because i think it's the essence of who we are as a species the essence of who we are as a country. i think that our military history is vital. it's as vital as understanding any other important aspect of our history. i write about it. i up in it. my father was an army officer. i spent 18 years as a dependent in the army and as a journalist, i wrote about military issues lot and spent time in places like somalia and iraq and bosnia. and i write about it as author because i that for americans too

to have a sense of where we're going it's important for them to understand the sacrifice that have been made to get here for almost 250 years now and sacrifices are immense and part of my job as an author is to remind people of the suffering and war suffering not just by soldiers but by everyone who's involved. you know that looking at ukraine, looking at what's happening in israel and and areas in the middle east. and i think it's important for people to that we got to where we are today partly largely through the sacrifices of those who are involved. why does it matter to our democracy or the experiment that our country had to win its independence in. well, we had to go to war because brits, stubborn as they

are, wouldn't allow us to just out the back door. you know, the crucible of war and it was a long war 1775 to 1783 of that crucible, for one thing, welded the country what it was going to be after. 1783 it gave us identity to a large extent. it gave us a sense of common purpose, a sense that we could have come purpose that we could move forward collectively and, you know, doug, there's you see over and over again through the course of the revolution. aspirations and in the winter after valley forge, the winner of 78, 79 and the middle of 1779, the is encamped in northern new jersey and henry

knox, the head of continental artillery, the father of american artillery, a celebration, the one year anniversary of the alliance with the french february and the guests arrived. there were mostly army officers, but there were a lot of women. the camp, including martha washington, the pass through 13 arches. and the arches had illuminated illustrate visions of various aspects of the war. so there was the first shots at lexan and then there was the glory of there were the towns were immolated by the british like, like falmouth and a surplus. and as move through this, the last of these 13 arches was a depiction of what was titled rising empire and it was america

they were trying to bring in to being they were trying to midwife this new country and depict it rivers covered with ships and canals traversing the land. and that's speaks to their idea what the place could become and think that that aspirational quality of the revolution is very to understanding the revolution itself, but also who they were. one of the comments earlier in the discussions, the wonderful discussions we had last night and earlier today was the idea of finding a cause worth fighting for not just somebody to fight against. how does that play out? the american revolution story? i mean, i think one of the most interesting things about studying the revolution reading about it, immersing yourself in is, first of all, this tells us who we are, where we came from, what our forebears believe, whether you arrived in america.

your ancestors arrived in the 17th century or three weeks ago. but the most thing that it reveals to us is what they're willing to die for. that is the most profound question. any people can ask themselves. what are you willing die for? and this question is put to them over and over again, because it get any realer than that. the number deaths in the american revolution to the population is larger than any of our wars other than the civil war. so that fundamental question what are you willing to die for? and that's something that in 2023, we should reflect on about their to that question and their answer to that question is essentially, i'm willing to die for you, because they're thinking about general jones on board. it's a phrase that washington repeatedly generation unborn, that's us and willing to die for it. that's a pretty profound. well, so you've you started out writing about 20th century more

and later and then you find yourself traveling back into the 18th century. what were some of the things that surprised you about the american revolutionary war, maybe based on what you had preconceptions might have had or or things that found were really familiar. i'm gobsmacked to use the british turn by the british. i tried to understand what it is they think they're doing waging war against their own people. for eight years, across 3000 miles of open ocean in the age of sail is. really fascinating and very difficult. very difficult to get to the bottom of it. you know, you have to understand where the british are coming from in order to understand revolution. why is it being fought? what do they think they're doing? what does george the third think he's doing because he's largely driving the train. and you know the essence of what the british government has

decided as of 1775 is that the new empire that has been created with the british victory over, the french and spanish in what we the french and indian war seven years war will dissipate if they permit colonies. most prominently the american colonies to break away, that will be the end of the empire. this is wrong. they're told by people like smith. wealth of nations is published in 1776. adam smith tells tells him quite clearly. it's one of the greatest economic thinkers in. that's not how it works. that's not how economies work. but that falls on deaf ears. and consequently, for eight years in immense cost in british blood and treasure. they're going to fight this war. they're going to lose. so i i'm fascinated by the other

side of the hill, the british side of the hill. one of the advantages you had, i think, in the early stages of research was the opening of georgian archives. the papers at castle mount vernon has been a part that. you went with the omen institute as a fellow there. talk a little bit about folks who may or may not know about archive and how it impacted your. it's fantastic. i was very lucky. well, the georgian papers, the papers of the four georgians who became king in the 18th and 19th centuries are owned by at that time they were owned by queen. they're now owned by charles. but elizabeth was. that's how monarchies work. you know goes to the sun. it's not that you just hand it over to your kin. easy. the queen was persuaded to allow the papers to be digit because there had been a bad fire at windsor. and the papers are kept at windsor. and to allow scholars in to a look at it. and there are others who were also there who are here today.

so i was there. i permitted to come for the month of april 2016, which happened to be the month the queen turned 90. so windsor was one hop in town and. part of the issue in digitizing was they didn't really what they had in those papers. nobody had ever through now of the papers about 300,000 pages had never been published. most of the papers to george the third because he was king for 60 years. so every day i would flash my badge at the henry the eighth gate and flash my badge again at the norman gate and up 102 stone steps and up 21 wouldn't stairs to the top of the round begun by william the conqueror in the 11th century. and that's where the papers are kept. seems secure and as a castle to make them and george was his own

secretary until late in life when he began to go blind, he wrote not only his correspondence himself, he made the copies himself. he's a great list maker lists of, you know theater productions that he'd seen. and so going him is perfect for our top ten list fascination today. and he'd been a leading member. that's right. yes. yeah. just don't let him get on twitter and the papers are some of them have been published, but a lot of not and you have this tactile sense of being in his presence because this is the is the he wrote. and you can really discern a lot about in this case george about his family. he writes a lot. queen charlotte this sort of drab, obscure or german princess that he's married 6 hours after they met he he had you clearly haven't seen bridgerton mean that's she's much interesting

than that he decorated the wedding bedroom with you know things many many yards of blue and large of goldfish because nothing says i love like a bowl goldfish. i'm sorry for jane. your wife. well, so. so it's your first book. so you're writing a trilogy, the american revolutionary war, which will be the definitive narrative history of the war for our generation. thank you for doing that. you didn't have do it. he felt like he owed it to us. right. so you you're going to do it. the first book was a phenomenal. where are we at with the second book? i mean, you know, you sound a publisher. what is the subject of the second volume of the trilogy? where does it begin and where does it end? it begins in the spring of 1777,

which is where the first book ends, and it will end in may of 1780 with the fall of charleston the british captured charleston. they capture the entire army there, 5000 men. it's a it's called the empire strikes back the second the second volume. yeah. well, there's a lot that and there is you know brandywine, and germantown and saratoga and the the capture and then surrender of philadelphia and i'm about three quarters of the way done with the manuscript, done hoping to be finished by the of the winter. well, one of the things that you're really incredible on in the first book and you've been very helpful mount vernon in many ways on the question of leadership since we got this big picture of a general behind you, what did you see in washington leadership as you started to do your research? you tried to write it out in the context, telling that story. what are some things that strikes you. you know, i had the privilege of spending 15 years metaphorically dwight eisenhower and writing about the american role in the liberation of europe in world

war two and the mediterranean theaters. so 15 years of dwight eisenhower. i learned a lot about eisenhower as a general i don't know anything about him as a president. and now i'm in the same relationship with washington. and they're quite similar some ways, despite the fact that they're different in their backgrounds and leadership skills overlap in certain fundamental ways. they have a good eye both of them for subordinate talent. they have executive minds organized for executive action. they're very articulate, both in both orally in writing. we think of eisenhower or as kind of this mumbling, and there's not churchill. at one point says after he's to eisenhower, he says it's good generals, do not usually have such powers expression as he has. washington is the same way. you never come away from a session with washington without any about what the commander's intent is.

so there is the clarity of their thinking, the clarity of their expression and their physical durability. washington never seems to catch cold over the course of 18 years. it's not, you know, physically accurate. he's very durable and. and eisenhower, despite smoking packs of cigarets a day in 1944, is the same and it projects robust. this in the captain on the ship their ability to roll with the vicissitudes of the things are very very dark for washington in particular and their dark for eisenhower at certain points to to have a sense that okay tomorrow we're going to get at him again neither rhythm neither washington nor eisenhower particularly good tactical. they don't see the battlefield spatially and temporarily the way a great captain does the way

our three generals here would they? they're not napoleon. and they're they have moments of strategic insight and and great confidence. but for the most part, they're not great strategists. but in washington's case his ability to get the next morning and keep on doing it. he writes a letter. you i've talked about this. he writes a letter in 1780, sends it home here to, mount vernon to washington. his cousin, his overseer, and things are pretty dark. the summer of 1780. and he says, you ask, what will be my reward for all? and i'm paraphrasing him now. and he says, it's it's the certain knowledge that i have done my best, that i've left it all out there, and that if this enterprise the war is not

successful, it will not be because of any want of effort on my part. that's and so i think that that's a pretty remarkable aspect of his leadership. it's a determination that we're going to see this through and i'm going to leave it all on the line. and i expect to do it too. that's why men followed him for through misery, because of this sense, his projecting both confidence and, determination. one of the hallmarks of american democracy that we've had civilian control of the military. it is a fundamental value that all americans across parties share. it has to be taught and inculcated in george washington, of course, walk the walk in the revolution. why he do that? what was his relationship like? the continental congress and how did you see that evolve in your work?

well, it's one of the most interesting relationships in american. he invents the notion civilian control of the military. it's not in the manual he humphrey blend. it's not in there. no, it's not there. right from the get go, right from the time he takes over the continental in july of 1775, in cambridge, he acknowledges the superiority of his civilian masters. he writes dozens and dozens of letters and there's first months as commander of the continental army to congress to state. they're not states yet, but they're all the states the summer of 1776. but to colonial governments, to committees, safety to movers and shakers and the underlying thesis of all this correspondence is basically i am your servant. i am here now. he can be very hard on.

the masters, and he can be manipulative, but he basically is acknowledging two things. one, i see your concern about. this thing you've created the continental i know that you know who cromwell was very aware of english history. and i am here to tell that we will not threaten what it is you're to build. he's pretty direct about it and this is something that he congress in particular over and over again his relationship with is rocky. you know in that winter that i was talking about when were in north jersey in 1778, 79, he shows up at camp and. he writes a letter to one of his virginia pals, says, first of all, it's the first time that he has been with the congress for

three years. and he says, where are all our great men? where is jeffrey? where is mason? why aren't they here. because of the 50 some who are there only, i think 12 or 13 had been there when he would last been together with congress and some of these are small men believe, it or not, in congress. and it's a cross for him to bear to deal with these guys. he thinks he's going to be in philadelphia that winter. only a few days and he's there for six weeks because there's a lot of business to attend to. and part of it is to deal with congress, to make congress see that, you know, we need to work together on this. so it's it's a fraught it's an extraordinary letter. when we were talking about it

earlier, i was delighted to know that you had a focused in on that one, because it's such a moment of frustration and to it, the civilian control of the military. you don't do that because you think the civilians are always right or very good even at what they're doing. you do it for a higher purpose in washington. all these revolutionary generals of all the great revolutions, you know they think they know what to do best. he did know what to do, but he had to defer to these small, as you say, right? yeah. no, i mean, it's a it's a difficult that he is trying to swallow sometimes and, you know, he builds his he's a very good politician. he builds relationships with those who help him to get to achieve his objective. so he becomes close. the successor of john hancock is the president of congress. john henry lawrence.

you've all seen hamilton john laurens is a character. henry's father and henry is the president. congress. he also, by the way, was the largest slave in america. that's where the laurens fortune came from in south. but henry laurens has a lot of things going for him in among other things, he recognizes that washington is extraordinarily competent. he recognizes that the way to win this war is through washington. and so washington builds an alliance with him, and he does that over over again, not only with of congress, but with state governments and, with people who can help him to achieve what he what he's trying to achieve. if it's, you know, i need 5000 bushels of wheat. my my soldiers are starving to death. please send me 5000 bushels of wheat. he's really down in the weeds and a lot things he's you know he is he has his own staff initially does it all clothe

your master general his his intelligence through the whole war. so he is very much in the weeds of running his army. but then on strategic level dealing with congress and others who are essential to making the war, successful. so as we're getting ready to transition to another conversation, one of the great things about your writing is you are obviously adept at the leadership, the grand strategy and the context, but you also, i think bring out the humanity and the reality for the common soldier very powerfully. what are some of the you see in the experience of the soldiery of the american revolution world two even into iraq and they were embedded there as well. what are some of the things that strikes you in the archive that come out that you recognize. i think one of the things that i see is that for an you know, whether in the days of lucidity

or whether you're in afghanistan in the 21st century or in iraq in the 21st century, infantry life is infantry life. and you you know, a lot of things have changed in terms weaponry and the education of the soldier or the marine. but basically the life is the life and that includes why they do what they do. why do they do this and they do it, not really because of, you know, the constitution and not because the flag. why do they risk what they risk, which in some cases is everything they do it for other the abiding of soldier for soldier marine for marine is an extraordinarily powerful thing. it blooms on a battlefield. and to me seeing that over the course of 250 years in our

history is extraordinary, reassuring. a lot of ways, but that's one aspect in which there is a through line that goes from that continental army soldier right through the, you know, member of the air force, navy, marines, army today he was. can we expect this next next, the publisher again again to clear my reading list ready the plan is 2025 is the beginning of the semicolons. i must. you heard there's a big anniversary coming. i heard the answer is the disinterest in this that we're looking it right. well, let's give him a big round of applause as we transition. is right now. you get the the opportunity to take the head chair there. okay. and let's welcome the generals to the stage. we have a vote them they just

come ladies. and gentlemen, please welcome generals joseph dunford, john kelly and jim mattis to. all right this is better. this is the way it should. thanks. so welcome to this session of the military in a democracy. we're fortunate to have three retired marine four star generals each distinguished by a career of service to the nation collectively spent more than 120 years in uniform and their contribution certainly have continued after they left active duty. i'll introduce some very briefly, alphabetically in fuller sketches. are in your programs. general jim mattis served as nato's supreme allied commander and commander, u.s. central

command and the 26th secretary of defense, general joe dunford, served commander of all allied forces in afghanistan as commandant of the marine corps and as the 19th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and general john kelly, closest to me served as commander of u.s. southern command, as secretary of homeland security, and for two years as the white house chief of staff. so if i could start with macleish, who was a poet. he was the librarian of congress for a while. he told us that democracy is never a thing done. democracy is always something that nation must be doing. if we agree that this dynamic quality to democracy, what is the proper role of the military

in that process and has it changed over the past 250 years? i'm not going to call you. it's not a class. you guys can actually champion as a general matter, as you start, i am going to call you. he did he did call on you. he said you're not going to call on me. i just got volunteered. and the fundamental purpose is summed up in the oath to support and defend the constitution and obey the order to the president of the united states. basically, we're here to protect this great big experiment that we called democracy, and that can take just about to the seven seas and the different continents, whatever it takes to keep this great big experiment alive. and it's something we we take the seriously and we put it all on the line. and the person who's indispensable in setting that trajectory he is general george washington, his words, his example that guide us to this

day. anybody else? i'm not sure we can add to that record? that is that is the answer. although i think the founding fathers also recognize that we needed the military to support and defend the constitution at the same time not be a threat to the american people, which is, of course, the that the founding fell in this. i agree with all that. but it's it's whatever else the nation needs from us whether helping the country recover from natural disasters occasionally used for domestic dispute issues that kind of thing so but it's the guiding always is the constitution unlike a lot of people we're not academics we're not lawyers. it's a very simplistic thing to say the constitution of don't get down and split hairs or whatever. it's the constitution is the rule of law.

and i think probably i speak for the the other two gentlemen a number times in my career i was told to do things that that i had to get back into. is this is this the right thing to do? is this the legal thing to do? and then advised my bosses as to whether i thought it was a good idea or not. what's an example, you know, use of use of u.s. military people, the united states. i would tell you that the u.s. military. is very, very effective and leans forward in terms of, again, helping the population of our country, in terms of hurricane and things like that and very, very good at doing that. but i would tell you in my as a young enlisted marine, i was a e-2 20 year old, trained up to come to washington, dc during draft riots in 1971, and all the

way to when was a major about to take over a unit that had just been used in l.a. all within the law, but had just been used in los angeles. riot control and. although we were ordered to do it, it was legal and all of that. we hate doing things because we, you know, we don't sign up. and it's fairly unique in our in our in our country. we don't sign up for the internal thing. we sign up to protect the awakening, if you will. there are other people very capable of taking care of the home game or people like that. sometimes you got to do it. but as i say, not something that from the youngest marine all the way up to the generals. it's not something that we like to do self sorry for being so off the law. i should. this is the first time i'm told the three of you have been together since. you left uniform service zero and also you the opportunity to submit questions as you have this morning and we'll try and

get to those later on. so there are a lot of folks now who fear that our democracy is imperiled, although there's no consensus. what that peril is, how best to counter it a columnist, george will, in yesterday's washington post wrote that right now is the most dangerous us moment since world war two. more menacing than the october 1962 cuban missile crisis. i you all have seen a lot in your time in public service. do you share that sense of imminent peril even to the countries foundation? is it different from past threats? we're i think i'm not sure what what david was was thinking when he said that. and if we put aside external threats to our country, which arguably, i mean, henry kissinger described and this is the most complex and volatile period since world war two, he said that in 2014, arguably only

more so today. so put that aside from minute when i think about challenging times think about an issue that which touched him on this morning which is trust and trust in our institutions and how the american people feel. and not only trust in our institution but trust in each other as americans. and a couple the statistics you've seen some of the survey data, but a couple of ones that really get my attention is that just a few years ago, 2010, 80% of the american people had high confidence in the us military. that number is down to 62% today, 62% is significantly higher and, all the institutions. but something's going on. it's 18% lower. just two years ago, if you just took republicans as a party now, 92% of republicans had high confidence in the us military two years ago. it's 68% today and on and on. right. you've seen the results of the surveys. when i think about challenges to

our country, i certainly think that's pretty close to the top of the list. rick is the lack of trust we have in each other, a lack of belief and frankly, in some ways and i suppose that's what we're here to talk about today over last today and tomorrow, both is common cause, right? common values, common and and we may disagree on how we are going to get where we're going to go, but we have always in the past agreed on where we are going. and so i think that lack of trust and perhaps lack of an agreement on the journey that we're on concerns me as much as anything in in that vein. some years ago, when was the i was a four star responsible united states southern command responsible for the caribbean and south america. and that was mostly interacting with governments, all that. but i did a press conference call it early 2014, and in the course of the press conference, i made the point that general dunford just made that at the

time 80 plus percent of americans had trust in us military, admired the u.s. military and in fact felt as all the u.s. military was the most admired and trustful, trustworthy institution in our country and. i'm not making a joke here, but one of the reporters took me on and said that is that good in a democracy? and i said, well, think so, because the people trust that their way of life will be. i said was which is i think concerning to me was another figure. and that the same people that are that are polled consider the congress as the least admired, least respected organization. 9 to 13%. they haven't been over 13% for 40 years, something like that. so, yes, i think a that's a concern for, you know, the old saying goes, we all love our congressman or senator but just like all the rest of them. but the fact is, generally

speaking, for a long, long time american public has not had a lot of faith in our in our elected leaders, which, again, i think is dangerous for general mattis. good thoughts on this. i would agree. i don't want to repeat what was said once in a while you have to count your blessings and we sit with nearly two and a half century east of a military establishing meant that it had never been a threat to the democracy. you can't say in a lot of other countries i think it was sam adams and james madison you said we may need a standing army, but it can be a threat. i mean, the founding fathers recognized that this could be a threat and yet we sit here today concerned that it's still the most admired institution in the but it's dropped that our concern right now it's not happened in 1961 in paris when they were concerned the french paratroopers were in a parachute into paris and take the city.

it's not what went on it just this last year an unfortunate injury or some their own officers refused to train under the government that would never happen our military and the trajectory we were put on that put us in that position was set by george washington and it included as pointed out earlier, rick, that the congress didn't have to be good at the job. they will be very blunt about it here. it's a democracy. it's hard work. it's noble work. but hard to make a democracy work was set up by the founding fathers to be difficult. we weren't after our nasty argument with george, the third we weren't going to set up a basically king in a new. we're going to have three competing branches and just to make it even harder they put together a legislature where they borrowed something from the romans and set up a senate. so you had a bicameral legislature. it doesn't mean three groups have to work together. i mean, four groups have to work together to make work.

the chances of that all the time, zero. okay. it just not going to work all the time, but the military has to stay loyal and loyalty counts most when there's 100 reasons not to be loyal, that's when it really counts. and the u.s. military says the president can be wrong, objectively wrong. it says the congress can be objectively, and that does not relievers our obedience to the court traditional officers. they are and i think that is something we have to look at right now. it's as important as the internal disarray that we are. we're enduring right now. at least there's institution. and by the way it's got violence at its portfolio is not going use violence against the american republic it's just not going to happen. so if if you feel that the republic is in peril times, there's a responsibility as a

responsibility of those in the military to raise the alarm in some way. or how about those out uniform? what what you see as your your role either when you were still in uniform or that you're not in uniform to sound the alarm. if there are things that you really think are alarming. rick, i'll start so when we talk about the role of the military at least as i see it it's i'll tell you what's appropriate and perhaps what you're suggesting are areas maybe that wouldn't be appropriate for me. i think it's appropriate for me as a retired military officer much like i did on active duty to highlight the challenges that, confront our country not in a not in a political way and very much in a nonpartisan way not to talk about current policies, talk about current political leaders, but to about the facts and the challenges from educational informed the

public perspective. and i think that's one of the three out of the three of us here today in the spirit of of that dialog with the american people, offer perspectives that can help. rick, i think what you're maybe alluding to, i don't want to put words in your mouth is, you know the role of us military officers talking about perhaps political challenges in our country and and frankly in that regard, at least my own perspective is that that's an area that we cannot helpful in. and so talking to the american people about our congress and the functions of our congress or talking to the american people, the credibility or the performance of the president of the united states, we're talking to the american people about a specific policy. those, i think, are issues best to political debate and dialog and i think, you know, we can be a voice that can be but we should recognize again, speaking for those in uniform, that there's a military dimension, a broader problem. when i you know, i spent my last

four years as the chairman is rick talked and i tell people i never dealt with a military problem i'm as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, i dealt with strategic problems that either the secretary of defense owned or the president of the united states owned that had a military dimension. and so i feel like confident in speaking about the military dimension of these problems. i feel less is it appropriate for me to be talking about the nonmilitary dimension of these challenges that are facing our country. and can you always separate one from the other? look, i we all have to make our own judgments and i certainly navigate that every day. and quite honestly, ahead, navigate it when i was on active duty, there's not a clear line between between the political, you know, the word use is nonpartisan, not apolitical we all live in a political world. you're not a you. in my case i still voted some people didn't i participate in the democrats process but in a nonpartisan way and i believe

for me it's very clear what is a position to take on one issue or another. and one of the things that complicates your life when we're on active duty is because a man or, woman in uniform has so much credibility and oftentimes that city north of us, i forget the name of it, but washington, a lot of those people don't have a lot of credibility. so a lot of times here, a senior military officer did the administration that you're serving or will come and say hey, we would like you to make a statement and it would be a political leaning statement. and of course, people in uniform would, you know, immediately, you know, push back and say, that's really not my role. another complication is and we have do this as part of our duties. when you go to congress to testify and you swear that you will you have to answer the questions and you'll swear that you will tell the truth, whole truth. and then they will ask you very

political questions that you dance around and not a particularly good dancer but you'll dance around and then the next day you'll be criticized in the press for being a political political person. but, you know, so they know what they're doing. but but but again, one of the things you learn is as a military officer, i think early on, senior military officer is to engage the rest of us, not politically, but to engage the congress, go up there and talk to them, share things with them, not secrets. just go up there, get to know the staffs and all that. so when the time comes, you can you can influence the they're looking at problems, but at the same time not have to answer very political questions. it's very much a washington to things, too. he did precisely in georgia. georgia, yeah. so the new york times a few days ago had an article about businesses.

now civics and seminars, other programs on democratic values and and principles in an effort to educate their employees so it includes sessions on the importance of voting but also how to recognize the dangers of disinformation, conspire to see theories, hate speech does the military have similar programs? did you encounter those when you were in the service? should it. look like with the military you're of course begins day one when you meet in the marine corps case. for us drones who are not interested in your mid-life crisis. and i remember my hair coming somewhere longer than now, down on my shoulders and in the first hours i'm sitting in a barber's chair and i'm looking at a wall and i feel my hair being down completely off.

me energy's fierce looking majors. pictures of the italian and the company and the base basement and and these fierce looking officers, their sharp uniforms that are prussian. i'm looking at them. there's a camera on the marine corps who ranks alongside the pope in the marine corps and up above them in civilian clothes is the president, secretary of defense and the secretary of the navy right there. and i'm getting my haircut. i'm a lesson in what is the role of the military and who are we subordinate to that sort of thing in the military? i've been a college graduate and i've taken a clashing law. i've taken a class in american history from our start up through 1865, from 1865 to present. in the old days, you had to take those kind of classes and. i don't recall anything sad about civilian control of the

military beyond those words. those classes where i joined the military they actually give you our long classes as you're going through your training about what does it mean and how does it apply to you and show you the the meaning of your oath is drummed back into you every time you're promoted. take the oath again. you swear it again every time you're promoted. which for us about ten times i think were expected to be cognizant and able to teach the young troops the same thing. and so it's really it's part of our dna in the military to have this sort of indoctrination this sort of training this sort of appreciation i would call it. and how does it manifest just on a personal level down there when you're actually out in the fleet and landing in korea and still remember sitting around a campfire in korea near, the dmz, with our what we called rok

marines, republic of korea, marines. and they were talking to us. it they were when i was a second lieutenant, a military dictatorship. that's all there is to it. they've been born in the middle of a war, basically, and they hadn't found their way out yet. and for most of us who studied american history, we know our path to a democracy is not exactly been a smooth trajectory all along. so we didn't pull back from them, but we also didn't apologize about our system. we advocated for it. we explained you really don't want to run a country because you're responsible for everything. then you're not very at it. so all we do is protect our country. and i had to speak slowly around the campfire because the korean you couldn't english the korean you could understand would translate it into them what was going on. you actually people nodding around the fire, you know that sort of thing. that's the it manifests internationally down at the pedestrian level. so it's really something we're rather proud of. and the indoctrination continues

right on through to the point before going up on the hill and testifying and and it's not a it's not a pain the neck to do it if you know what you're talking as secretary of defense i would go up and speak to the chairman before i went up. i'd clear what i was going to say with the chief of staff in the white house, general kelly. and we would go up and talk and it was very easy between to understand which question i would answer and which were properly for the chairman dancer. it's not it isn't rocket science. if you've studied the constitution and you believe in it. you've internalized it. not that hard in work. i would just say that indoctrination. and training the general manner about i just was looking at the title this session the role of the military in democracy and not three weeks ago i speak to spoke to a gathering at three stories at a course called pinnacle. all us have spoken to that course at one time or another. and this is where we bring three stories together from all of the

services, really two large, formal, professional military education. they get. and this was the subject of 2 hours and it was about the role of the military in democracy, how to navigate the challenging political times we find ourselves in, in the very topic that we just spoke about, how do you testify? how do you navigate between the executive branch government, the legislative branch of government? how do you think about talking to the media when you're actually speaking to many, many our allies are, mothers and fathers, the congressional congressional members, the executive branch of our government. so this is an education that begins with that visual of sitting there and looking at the chain of command. it clearly demonstrates the civilian leadership on the role above the military leadership and continues on until individuals attending their last form of professional military education, some 35 years after that first that first haircut. you know, we don't we have any at least we didn't when i left any formal classes about civics

and all that. but i will say this in a couple of vignettes i. grew up in a very working class part of boston all white, almost exclusive be roman catholic. i go to boot camp in 1970 and i'd for the first time in my life, i got to know black people, black guys, and realized very quickly that they were just as homesick as i was. they were just as interested or disappointed when they didn't get letters from home. this is before internet, all that, and then you leave and you continue in for the rest of your you're essentially with men and women of all colors and all persuasions and in the hope it in one unified effort to the country. and so when i can remember, you know things were happening in the old riots here, there and everywhere for one reason or another. and those of us that were watching the tv together would just shake our head and not

understand why things like that were going on in washington, dc or in boston or whatever. and then something we don't think about we take in today about. 200,000 kids, young people between, 18 and 24, and we discharge about the same number every year after roughly four years. they are different people when we discharge them. very different people. and i'll just the example i would give you is years ago when i was at department of homeland security, i wasn't addressed. six or 700 fire chiefs from around the country, and they were you know, the vast majority of firefighters in our country are volunteers so they are different. they don't paid the different kinds of people. they just do this. they're great citizens. but in the course of talking to them, i said, you know, just out of character, know, they're all volunteers. i'm trying to get my arms around. the volunteer aspect i it just out of curiosity how many of you were veterans about 80%. 90%. raise their hands.

so that's interesting. how many of you like boys leaders or girl scout leaders, same number. how many of you you know coach little league, peewee hockey, same people so that is not the role of the military in a democracy but i would tell you those three or 400,000 people discharge every year have a positive impact on our society. you could goes all the way back to civil rights movement of the late 1940s and fifties goes further back in terms of the treatment of immigrants. because when you put people together in an organization called the u.s. military and they endure things that are for the most part, as you pointed out earlier on, kind of unimaginable and, then they come back out. they're different people. they look at our society differently. they look at each other differently. they understand other like they wouldn't have had they not. riggs this one quick comment all of us were on active duty together when a former commandant said that the marine corps should do three things. it should it should make

marines, it should win battles. and it return the men and women that serve back home as better citizens. so we've actually had explicit conversation about the role and responsibility of of of the military returning men and women. i think, more appreciative of democracy. see that they sacrificed on behalf of and and i think more of the role of the military, which gives you broader education on the nature of democracy as a whole. that's a heavy rucksack does is every rucksack not for a make marines win battles in return and women back as british citizens. those are three pretty good things to do. if i could if i could throw out one more thing here, general sherman, when he was disbanding just a little bit north here, they army of the west after the civil war, first day, the army of the potomac marched through town in the victory parade. in 1865. next day, the army west marched through. and when he sent them home, he said, you been good soldiers, so i know you'll make good citizens. now, that's not always case.

there's always someone that disappoints you i'm reminded that jesus of nazareth had one out of 12, you know, just appoint him. okay. welcome to nature. but some people have shown some concern and that some of the people in the january 6th attack on our on our legislature on the senate had served in the military. but when you step back and think about and here is a primarily male crowd and the us military primarily and the number of who are in that crowd some which had served maybe 20 years before, five for a handful, literally two handfuls maybe of ones were serving in the reserves or, serving on active duty, and they will be dealt with. the military knows how to address people who disappoint them, but they don't. the military, as defined by people we just heard about here and who go off and their honor and actually sharpened in their appreciation of just how great

this experiment is and what they saw fellows do alongside in terms of sacrifice to keep this experiment alive overwhelmingly they set the right example and don't let a few who who don't get the word that just disappear don't you at all they don't define the us military. there's a poll question we're going to look at in a minute, but one of the questions from the audience is this are you concerned about a growing cultural gap between u.s. military and the civilian society? they if so, what be done to close that gap? so so what i would say about that is that we have a little bit of problem making our recruiting numbers right now. that's on the surface, as i've dug in to the numbers, the propensity for people to enlist and in one of us spent some time as a recruiter right now is at

9%. what does that mean of the eligible young men and, women that can join the us military? 9% of them have a propensity to enlist and by and large, that means is their coaches, their teachers, their parents are not encouraging them to serve, let alone to in the us military. so i think the cultural gap can be overblown but what i am concerned about in our country and, again, part of the theme here of these couple days is the lack of appreciation for need for citizens to serve, in one form or another, the military service. i don't i don't put that out is the only way you can serve your country. it's one of the ways to serve is serve country. but i do think in our country right now, we're a long way from 1961 or 62 when john f kennedy said ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do. your country. we actually had a senator in my

home state in his two years ago who said it's time us to ask what the country can do for so if there's a if there's a cultural out there, it's less about the military and the civilian population, in my mind, than it is about a culture of service and a culture of us being stewards of our democracy and finding way, whether it's in our local community or whether it's in uniform, to actually serve this democracy. because i think as the point was made very well, i in late this morning, but i heard some of the presentation even before lunch and at least the theme was touched on a couple times about the need for citizens to be engaged, the need for citizens to be again stewards of our democracy so that rick more than than divide between the military and and the civilian communities is. what i'm concerned about there is naturally an awareness issue, and i think that's just up to those of us who have served

close that awareness issue, i mean, less than 1%, less than 1% of the american people serve in. so, you know, it isn't like world war two that you covered so well. i mean, when every member of every had a member who served, everybody knew somebody that was a soldier. sailor or marine. that's not the case today that challenge. still challenge, i think can be addressed. and many of us have spent a lot of time out there speaking to speak in a local community so they know their men and women in uniform and i think many veterans organizations are out there doing it every day. there's a good we have the first poll number there. so one of the questions that was put to respondents mount vernon for the symposium asked whether the military should have, quote, a strictly limited in domestic politics and a strong. about two thirds agreed with that that the military should

have a strictly limited role. domestic politics that surprise you at all it's surprises me that it's not 90% or 95%. i think you tend to ask that question. u.s. military it probably would be around 95% and we just don't do it. and i'm surprised so few americans don't know that we don't do it. well, that's what i'm asking. are you surprised that. well, and i think sometimes what happens is and we kind of address a little here, the active duty people think are pretty very, very good about not it see, you know, after general gets older, after the colonel gets out and to enter politics or not into politics, it starts to comment. and as we're talking earlier, when we get ready to do this you know are they u.s. citizens have a right to say yes is it a good idea?

not so much. and you know, one of the things i get this question a lot, i said of the retired generals and admirals and i looked it up not not really scientifically, but there's about 4200 retired generals and admirals still alive in the united states are retired, but 4200 there's about 36 that regularly. and i'm not but will sign letters or on tv and criticize and become political has sort of been percentage. but no, i think i think i speak for the three of us. i mean, we we don't do i mean, i voted in every election while i was on active duty but one ever knew how i voted i never heard congress a political discussion while i was on active duty. we just don't do that. george marshall prided himself on not dave petraeus that he doesn't vote. you didn't while he was on active duty for many many don't vote for president.

vote for mayor and governor, that sort of thing. they don't want to think their guy or gal won or lost the next commander in chief. so there is that passing out. but as far as taking stands, you know, if this is part of domestic, i think retired officers should speak out endorsing one party or another. if asked to serve. that's and republican or democrat, male or female. if the president states asked you to serve, i brought up by the greatest generation. if you're prepared to serve. there's only one answer, and that is you'll go in and do your best to support and defend the constitution. you should show that would be one thing. but endorsing in an election is we would see that as domestic involvement of a pernicious kind. would we want the military to stay out of it and. that, again, is the standard established by george

washington. the military's role at he actually comes out he. his army i think by that point in the war you'd know better than me, rick, the miracle army if i remember. and at newburgh where the troops they definitely had legitimate grievances and he doesn't walk in and tromp over him for saying you shouldn't do this comes in today. i understand that. but we're not going to we're not going act like a threat. he said that we are going to set our national character. we're on probation and we do not want to shed our national character in a ruinous way. so he saw the danger of even representing legitimate concerns as a military body. so i think this is this probably shows how the military would be way off the chart on one end of this and maybe a little gap between us in a civilian society. but with rick, another spokesman spoken about several times as

education and civics. and for next year's rephrase the question and say, are you aware of the debate our founding fathers had about a standing army? and if so, what their concerns were? the answer the same people, the 30% to who who who didn't concerns about a strictly limited role probably were not aware of that debate in concern which which is one that remains today. all right. you have your marching orders. so, general mattis, you mentioned january six. let's let's go back to that for a moment. there is an analysis by npr earlier this year that estimated that 15% of the defendants who at that point had been charged in the insurrection had a background in the military or law enforcement, mostly former military, as you say, a few active duty defendants, including several active duty

marine. 15%, mostly male crowd, according to the census bureau, only about 7% of all american adults are military veterans. so what do you make of this? i mean, is there a if 15% of those charged have, some military or law enforcement background that bespeak a short coming by the military and civics lessons to those former soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, should care. is it representative of the country? and therefore, we should say, don't worry about it. i'm interested in your your on this. well, if take the total numbers i don't think it represents it at all, but it's a concern certainly but i think remember when someone gets out of the military and many get out at age 22 after a full tour and an honorable if at 45, they were

part of a group that marched on washington, d.c. maybe a few other things happened between 22 and 45, one of which might be there's certain news stations you can listen to that are designing their program, create distrust. with half of america. just pick whichever one you want and you'll dislike the other half. i mean, if that's simple. so certainly there is. there is. i would just say you can influence them like can influence anyone else. and an oath taken as a young guy or gal condemning memory, the military, we were in the marine corps for around 120 years. we in the u.s. marine corps, we're part parcel of this society. we are impervious to its influence on us. the fact is that probably in no other society on earth are, we more apt to point out failings within ourselves. but overall, we are always out to make a more perfect union. and if the people on that

trajectory of some fall off that trajectory, that is not representative. and again, 250 years where, the military have not been a threat. i don't see this as significant. it's still a concern, but think the concern is much bigger than just that handful people that we're talking. i also reckon at least my experience, it does not reflective of the veterans population as whole. and i think it's important when we talk about that number and in day as significant as it was i can think of several as general mattis was speaking i was just thinking about the organizations some of you might have heard of team rubicon, thousands of veterans that respond to national disasters. travis manning foundation files dozens of veterans that have focused on youth character development across the country. team red, white and blue. so there are thousands and thousands and, thousands of veterans that are out there every making contributions to

their community and doing exactly what a good ought to do. and i just think it's important that when we talk about veterans, we we ensure the full context of who's out there and the conversation we're having. because, rick, you've met them when they're in active duty, talked about you're embedded time and in the qualities that the vast majority of them demonstrated when they're active duty you know the loyalty the unselfishness the commitment those qualities remain with them through life and they manifest themselves activities that these veterans can perform every day to include the ones that general kelly spoke about a minute ago when he talked about that group of first responders. and i think that so civilian control of the military we've touched on that i talked it earlier no man in the early history of the country was more ardently advocating for the military's subservience to civilian leadership than that guy behind us there.

general washington did practically invent the concept. he was at pains to, affirm this principle right through his letter in december 1783, when he told congress having, now finished the work, assign me. i retire from the great theater of the previous year and may 82, a continental colonel suggested the commanding general, general washington set himself up as a king. washington's rebuked do saying you could not have found a person to whom your schemes more disagreeable if have any regard for your country concern, for yourself or posterity or respect for me, banish thoughts from your mind. that's a rebuke. now i know the of you fervently subscribe to this, but have you ever felt a tension between adherence to that principle and an existential threat to the

democracy? can you can you envision such a tension? and how is this sacred dictum passed along from generation to generation? it's part of who we are. i mean, when ofttimes a lot of thought in a washington in expert other than i. i a lot about the man and and what he did but but the people will say you know see what's the greatest thing that george washington did? in my opinion he did it twice. he went home all the other stuff that he did. unbelievable that he did, you know, took us to victory in the revolutionary war and then began establish how to be a president when there was no guidebook for him to do it. all of that remarkable stuff. but went home twice and that lesson is a lesson that certainly people the military

understand and and and and i think has set the standard for politicians and military men and women since then he went home. that was well said, but i would just say this because you asked the question explicit i can't think of one time in my where the issue civilian control of the military was in doubt. i can't think of conversation that i was ever involved in that would be inconsistent with washington's words. i can't think of one incident. certainly in recent memory where the issue was in doubt this is quite amazing, don't you think? over 250 years it doesn't happen everywhere. it's not an accident. it's the point we just made. it's an accident. this is this is something i think we appreciate. and, you know, we have an

expression, the marine corps, as we pass on such as regiments hand down forever. those are intangible qualities and lessons learned that one generation passes down to the next. and i think this tradition that was passed down to us by george washington, it was embodied by george is is alive today as it was then, you know, the it's not that we always god knows with the politicians and the civilian leadership in their own ways and we've all done it there are ways to try to help them understand better the issue you know, when you're in these days since 1985 the immediate possible four star war fighter, the secretary of defense, and then the united states. and a few times when i was in southern command on a few issues i couldn't make the case sufficiently, i thought to to the secretary of defense who was a great man and asked i said, i think i need to talk to the president he needs to understand

at least i'm the expert in this particular field. he needs to just understand it. and if he disagrees and says continue to march, i salute it, do it as long as it's legal, moral. so are ways to influence them. and frankly, all kidding aside about politicians, when when a person in uniform walks in and says, senator, congressman, president, let me sit down and just give you another perspective on your on your position. they don't have to it and if they don't, fine if they if they if they do you're helping them be a better politician or a better but it's very interactive and no military senior military officers that i know in fact it's counterintuitive really to to most societies that the american military senior officer is and that's a relative term a very open to disagreement in one of the things about president washington, then general washington was, he he allowed people to come in and disagree with him because.

he wasn't the expert on everything. and of course, he carried that into the presidency, which made him and i think set a standard for for what, a an effective president is. people you know, it it's too big a job. you can't understand everything. but if you're open to people to come in and say, you know, boss, i disagree, i had a staff officer lawyer down in miami said to one time i wanted to do something, had to with drug interdiction. and he said, you know, you have five or six great ideas every day i mean, five or six really good ideas. this isn't one of them. and then and then started telling me about the legal implications and all the rest. i hadn't thought of that. thanks a lot to the secdef said your desire to speak directly with the president. absolutely. i mean you know he's a great man and he said i can't convince him and his staff come on up you know no one confrontational is just serve president there's

another way to look at this issue. i lost a chair here. i'll a story to publish plays on every day. my my first secretary of defense from my last assignment was the late secretary ash carter. and i had spent some time working on a fairly controversial policy issue. and in any event, i made a recommendation to him that was not consistent with the decision that he made. and we had a full throated conversation and dialog about it. and in the next day he was going out to make a press conference to make a statement. the media and his chief of staff. hey, i want you i want you to stand there and be part of this dialog or be part of the press conference. i said, i'm not going to do that. i said, the secretary is making a political decision, which as soon as press conference is

over, i will be 100% in support of. but he's making a political decision. i'm not going to be. no, i want you to be there. so i went up to see the secretary. secretary said, fully understand that position. i appreciate that position. that's exactly what we'll do. and by the way, i had given them six or seven reasons why the decision he was making ought to be at least maybe considered a different way. and he said in all of those points you made i'll make sure and implementation they get addressed. and so i wouldn't it isn't just within the military i think we're we're open to dissent all all the secretaries defense that i worked for, i had ample opportunity to say know this is kind of where i come out this thing from the differences but i came at it as i emphasized earlier from a military dimension, a problem that was a bigger issue. and so the secretary took on board in that particular case, my military recommendation, and

he made a policy decision. and then the next day, all of us in uniform stop talking about debate was over, the dialog was over. we implemented the decision and exactly what happened. it happens every day like that. would you like to elaborate on the specifics? no, no, i don't actually want to talk about the specifics, because that decision, as i pointed out, has been made the debate is over. i think rick, what we're saying is, you can take pride in carrying out a decision that you don't agree with and carrying out to the best of your ability. if you believe in the constitution, because that a larger issue and we are not we're not shrinking violet. we will not allow george kennan calls the treacherous of deference to come where, you know they're going into the wrong decision and in your military judgment and, not speak up. but once speak up, if you think they heard you said we will not elected, we have a right to be

heard. we. don't have a right to be obeyed in the military. and we will be very blunt about. our our advice, we don't have to dress it up. there will be. it'll be done respectfully, because that's the way we do things. but at the same time, we will carry out the orders of the line. and i don't think i cannot think of an example of when we were unable to do that a single. and there have been i think many of you are aware of of the public disagreements where the military said we don't agree with and we were ordered to do it and we it to the best of our ability and right we were in the same unit at times carrying out those and we did it to the best our ability, you know, this issue my predecessor was general martin dempsey and friend and before i took my final assignment and we were in the process of transition and we were talking about this very topic i'm looking at the sign here. you all can't see the role in

the military democracy. and he said he said, you know, joe, we have a statutory responsibility to provide military advice to our political leaders in the law to scripture in our job description. he said, i'm finishing up my four years in this assignment and looked and looked and looked and where can i find a statutory responsibility for any political leader to to us and and the only reason they will is trust us. they trust that the advice is nonpartisan. they we have no agenda other than them achieve the political objective that articulated and that we're competent. and those are things that we have an obligation to bring into that unequaled debate or any equal dialog between leaders and those of us in uniform, which is 100%. again, the touchstone of all that is the words of george washington that we started this section with with. here's a question from patrick sparrow's, the librarian of, the

george washington library here. what was the biggest leadership challenge you faced while serving in both the military outside the small question, jim. there were no tough ones where were brought up to with those things. we assumed things going to go wrong. you kind careen from one crisis to another in your military career, at least in the naval service that we were in and what that calls for is competence and empathy and your own resolve, hence probably best way to describe this a traveler, a medieval fable, travel on the road to london, run into two people at a rest stop, one name, fear and one's name plague. and he said, why are you guys going to london? and the guy named plague said, well, we're going go up there, kill 10,000 people a look at

describing a little guy so you can do that. he said, no, i going to kill 100 points of fear he's going to kill the rest. we deal all the time as leaders where we have got to absorb fear and exude hope and a faith in the constitution. what we're doing, that's our job and it's with competence and empathy that's the way you've got to do it, because crises are crises and oftentimes we've been through 100 crises by the time we make. and sometimes the civilian leaders have not been through that outside of their own personal life or something. and so what you have to do is have respect for them. and the perils they're facing as. they're trying to learn things you learned in a 21 year old second lieutenant with 40 sailors and marines underneath you who are counting on you to be competent and understand they're they're scared to death where they're going and they're going to go. and i think if you keep that mentality you build respect for those above you and who have been elected, who are who are

serving the appointed constitutional, appointed senate confirmed positions, who just may not have the background. but again, your job and educate them as best you can and you just take it. it's not hard to do. why don't you have a little empathy their position and recognize you know that was once me maybe i've been a little younger the military is a wonderful teaching organization for very young leaders, but it doesn't create an arrogance unless you've lost touch with the humility that should come with a commission in the us military. tough leadership. in uniform around all the. i went down to the tactical level because it just flashed in my mind. so mine you'll remember well about years ago i was in charge of regimental combat team. we had about 7500 marines and then the first marine division general. mattis ordered us to an attack

and seize an airfield that was about 40 kilometers away. we took some casualties on the way. we accomplished the objective. and then he called me and said yeah, you need to come back to where we started that morning and what happened in the interim was there was a broader issue that was assessed by what we would do. the army calls echelons above reality rick that you're with that that that we would move back to the of departure to consolidate logistics and so forth and so we had actually gone further than where our senior headquarters was comfortable. and my response. and i think you remember general mattis was simply roger got it and i turned my marines and i said, we're going back. that's what we need to do. and they all you know, i mean, i think there was a little gritting your teeth, but there wasn't much said everybody back in the vehicles. and we went back from we started and in only we got back did we

then a conversation i didn't ask why when when the first radio call came, nor did i share with my and sailors the why we had something we were told to do. we're going to go do it. we'll have a conversation about that later. but that day is 20 years ago and it sticks my mind because whenever you ask somebody, you go in harm's way to do something and then you immediately tell them, hey never mind, we're going to go back. it's a tough thing to do. and i suspect that that call was no easier for the commanding of the first marine division to make than it was for me to get, you know. but you can see why for me, rick, it was not a tough day because down through the chain of command and a degree of trust, it can act like a shock absorber when you get something like that. and it's just a cheery well, maybe not a cheery eye, sir, but you do it and you just count on it. i ordered the attack against my advice. we attacked were deep inside

city and we were ordered to fall back again. and i still remember a young, blond haired kid. filthy, dirty, a machine gun over his shoulder, fallen back, a camera shoved in his face. and don't you feel all of probably 19 years old and you've had this terrible fighting, you've lost some of your buddies, you know, you've you know, got the enemy on the run. now you're to fall back. and in this terrible and you must feel terrible. do you feel marine? you just float talking lad from down south these turn on look at the camera you've got a machine and all the stories. it doesn't matter what it hand down somewhere else and kill them and turn walked off now that blunt language is probably not polite company you don't repeat it too often. but my point is that the way down through there were captain and lieutenant and sergeants and corporals kept that lad's spirit the game. and you think what george washington martin had to do to defeat defeat valley forge, congress goes home, doesn't

order enough money, blankets, and yet somehow he has that intimacy. his troops, that fondness and affection that they feel for him, that that is the the bread and butter of all good commanders and i can just call a colonel and say back 7500 men who just fought and cleared that. and somehow the center the center holds all the way through. it goes without saying, the hardest thing to do is to send the send them out there knowing full well some of them will be killed or seriously wounded. but you do it. that's why that's why you see, us collectively pounding the desk in congress for to recruit the best people to, get the best equipment to get the best for them, because that's the difference between life and death on the battlefield. but the hardest thing to do is tell them the saddle up, get on

the get on the vehicles and and go out to take or iwo jima or way city that's the hardest thing and not something everybody can to give that order to live with that consequence really. all right. so in washington post columnist max boot last month invoked all three of you, called you trump's said trump's generals need to warn voters that he is unfit to serve. he quoted general kelly's to cnn describing trump as a person who has no idea what america stands, he of general kelly and general mattis, particularly simply issuing statements is not enough. they need to go on tv and on the stump to get the message out. he also quotes you, general is speaking your mind about former

president. what do you think of this? i mean, you're this is pretty direct language from, max boot prominent conservative. you pay any attention to it is i didn't know he said that but that i don't follow again we go back this issue i think of general mattis and i and others like us are a little different because we left military and then went into the government and so i've always tried to certainly be very, very aware that i can never take general off, never want to, but to be very careful that when i make a statement, something that has to do with my time as the chief of staff for the secretary of homeland security, but i will go back to this issue. first of all, i would never suggest any american citizen who they should vote for, not vote for i a business.

they but they should be made aware of all of the you know, all the factors and all of the all of the things that go into a particular candidate. i do think and i've talked to these times, i do we need to step back and george washington again being the man that set the oftentimes asked if this guy of that guy was qualified to the united states and i've very quickly said no. and there's this gasp in the room. i said, but listen no one is qualified to be president. and his states, with the exception of washington, because he had nothing to go on. he was making it up as he went along and did a pretty good job. i general eisenhower came as close, but even he would say, i'm not qualified to be president. i was the job is so and i saw it firsthand. i mean, the white house is so big and so incredibly complex and then people say then, then what makes for a successful president? it's the same thing that makes

for a successful general, successful businessman and successful man. it runs mount vernon. you surround yourself with men and women of character that know more about the topics than you do and then listen to them again. want one of general washington's tremendous strengths and then as president was he did exactly that. and people came in and in and made him smarter on a topic so he could make an informed decision. if you don't do that, you will not be a successful, you know, whatever. governor, mayor, general. yeah, i i come from the american west. i resigned from that out west. we say actions count louder than words. just leave it at that. so, so, you know, just from a military perspective, here's

what i believe in last press conference that i conducted in my last assignment, i was asked to comment about president trump and i and i said, obviously not i can answer that question to the reporter. and i said, and i want you to understand something i'm not going to comment on after i take off my uniform either. you introduce us today, general mattis, general kelly dunford. that's just the way it is. and when you speak. and i'm very sensitive and, aware of this. when you speak whether you're in uniform or no longer wearing a uniform, you still the institution and the american people, that issue of nonpartisan, the american have a right to believe that military has no agenda other than security of our country to support and defend the constitution. united states like we started the conversation here today and. so for the real why i would never speak is that reason the other reason is i think.

i should have more confidence in the american to think that i somehow i'm uniquely qualified to tell the american people who they ought to vote for, who they ought to support for president, or senator or congress would be an act of hubris and actually don't think i'm so influential that i can actually impact their decision. and but i am confident that i can do damage by speaking against political leaders. so we're coming close to the end of our time here. but i wanted to ask you about this, robert, and each of you know well, former of the cia, former secretary of defense under george w bush and barack obama in a much discussed recent in foreign affairs, referred to the united as a, quote, dysfunction oil superpower. he said that china and russia

firmly believe united states is in an irreversible decline as made evident by what secretary gates called growing political polarization and domestic disarray. and he added this has made american power and unreliable, practically risk prone autocrat to place dangerous bets with potentially catastrophic. do you all agree with gates's assessment? it's pretty dire and if so, what's the military's proper role in reversing that dysfunction? i do agree with it. and think the military proper role to achieve a degree of lethality that cautions any autocrat to think that raucous democracy is somehow weak right now and, i assign myself, you get your job when you go into any job in the government or civilian as secretary of

defense, i find myself the job of keeping the peace or what passes for peace. one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day. while the diplomats work magic and that is done by imposing military imperatives over rights of an american. in other words, you join the military, you surrender certain rights that the rest of americans in order to protect us liberal democracy and means on the battlefield. you don't say we're the good guys, we're going to win. we're going to win because we're more lethal. our tactics are better. we have better troops. we are better led. we have better equipment, better training. all that put together. and that's our job and. that's our job is to buy time until this democracy can come back to a degree of unity, a degree fundamental friendliness of love, one another, respect for one another. that was talked about this morning. and reminder, even a broken clock, right twice a day, just

maybe. the person you disagree with, it's got something to offer. so the military to protect this experiment and. rigor. i wouldn't for a second understate the challenges secretary gates spoke about. i think we've had conversations about over the last couple of days, and i suspect everybody today has talked about much over the last few months. i am comforted by the fact that secretary gates can write what he wrote and can say what he said. and i am comforted by the fact that we're having this dialog and only because somebody quoted winston churchill before lunch. i'm also reminded of what he said about americans that. they'll they'll they'll they'll do the wrong thing or 2000 things wrong, and then they'll eventually to the right thing or words to that effect and i do think this is an inflection point in our democracy. and if do it, the american people have historically when we've gotten to these challenging times and said, hey, let's remember at stake here, let's remember what we hold

dear, let's remember our values and, let's step up and do what must be done to protect this experiment. i fundamentally believe, we'll get there. i have concerns about the damage that might be done before. we actually turn this thing around. but again, without understating it, i also have a degree of confidence in people and a confidence in our process. the challenges exacerbated by the information age and so forth. but i think we'll get there. our potential adversary is all of that aside. just remember the best military on the planet. don't be crazy. just just don't be crazy. all right, three great americans, please join me. and good to see. all right.